Not the murderer's fault, blame the gun.

[The Real Wyatt]

As I see it

Longtime provocation. Old man is proud of his house/lawn/garden/property. He works hard to maintain it at it's best. Young punk next door doesn't control his dog; lets it pee all over the neighborhood. Dogs continuously pees in old man's yard creating brown spots. Old man says to young man "hey, control your dog" "he's pissing on my lawn and uglifying it."

Young man says "**** you old geezer, my dawg can piss wherever he wants to."

This escalates into a shouting match, then probably a touching/shoving match.

Old man starts to pull out his .45, then changes his mind, thinking better of it.

Young man challanges "Old man, if you pull that thing out, you better damn well use it!" Young man then punches the old man in the head and beats the older man to the ground.

Old man then pulls his .45 and shoots the younger man in the chest. Young man dies right there on the pissed upon lawn.

Case closed ...

Old USMC vet goes back into his house and closes the door.

If I'm on the jury, the old guy goes free.

 

[Art Eatman]

Anybody got a LEGAL comment to make? Aside from personal opinion, anyway...

If not, let this thread die a natural death...

 

[NukemJim]

I am familiar with this shooting, it took place less than 1 mile from where I lived at the time and I have been following it closely.
Commenting on Legal issues only per Art's request.

1)There have been multiple reports in local papers, that the shooter was "coached" as to what to say by an off duty LEO (CPD, IIRC ) who was related to the shooter, who arrived before the local LEOs arrived at the scene.

2) There have also been charges about disproportionate sentanceng by the same judge in other cases.

3) Despite the byline the shooting did not take place in Chicago, it took place in University Park, a small southern suburb of Chicago where there is the Cook County AWB but not a handgun registry.

4) Handguns are not banned in Chicago excluding those owned by LEOs, "grandfathered " guns, Chicago Alderman ( google Dorothy Tillman and gun ) and legally armed private security there are about 3K guns registered in the city of Chicago. Unofficial LEO estimates are that there are between 100K to 1500K guns in Chicago. Outside of Chicago there are extremely few places tha were attempting to ban handguns prior to MacDonald, I believe that all have since allowed handgun ownership.

5) So common is "Illegal gun" ownership in Illinois so common and so well known that after a high profile case of an "Illegal gun" being used lawfully to defend a household against a home invasion, the Illinois Legislature passed a law that when using an "illegal gun" lawfully defending your home you could not be prosecuted for possesing the firearm.

6) This case bears some legal similarities ( and popular opinoin ) to another recent case where a 72 year old female shot a 12 year old who was throwing bricks at her. The child survived, the woman was not charged, the gun she used was not registered but she is not being charged.

NukemJim
PS Art per request legal (OK maybe a little vox populi ) only. No personal opinoin expressed does not mean I don't have them.


NukemJim

 

[gc70]

Based on this article, the jury found some element of self-defense in the shooting:

Jurors found Charles Clements guilty of a class one felony, but it was not the first-degree murder charge that prosecutors argued for. Instead, he was convicted of second-degree murder.

"The second-degree murder stipulation alleges that he believed his life was in jeopardy, but that belief was unreasonable," said Will County State's Attorney spokesperson Charles Pelkie.

However, the conviction for second-degree murder reflects that the shooting was not purely in self-defense. This emphasizes the need to remember that being armed may ultimately save your life, but it does not give license to initiate or escalate a confrontation.

 

[Black Butte]

You keep saying the old man shot the young one for allowing the dog to urinate on the lawn, implying that was the only provocation - while ignoring the young man's several crimes leading up to the shooting; trespassing, vandalism, assault and battery.

Occasionally, dog owners will stop on the sidewalk in front of my home as their dogs do their business. Dogs go where they go. If it's #2, the dog owners in my community almost always pick it up. If it's #1, dog owners do not, and cannot, pick it up. I certainly don't go charging out my front door brandishing a .45 looking for a confrontation. I can't help but think that if Clements didn't have a full-on meltdown over a doggie making wee-wee on his grass that Funches would still be alive. Allowing a dog to pee in grass is not unreasonable or out of the ordinary, but bringing a gun into the equation at this point (after peeing and before hitting) is. Once the gun is brandished, everything changes. You never know how somebody will react after being threatened with a gun. Some will be scared, others will be angry, in either case, the threatened person may act irrationally. Clements had no business introducing a gun into the mix because a dog made water on his precious lawn. It is gun owners acting irrationally in this manner that will cost us all our Second Amendment rights. Think of your own family members. Would you want any of them threatened with a firearm because they might have done something as trivial as spit chewing gum out on somebody's lawn.

My two cents, for what it's worth.

 

[Cranky CJ]

This is the second thread now where one of the parties showed their gun and somebody who ''should not' have gotten shot, did. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Also,

I don't recall in the previous three pages, anybody speculating that flashing the gun caused the 23 yr old to 'defend' himself against the 69 yr old's advances. We only know the side of the story coming from the person who is defending himself againt murder charges. How many think, maybe, the story is a tad tainted or self serving?
from the artical quoting his testimoney;

the 23 yr old was walking away
the 69 yr old called him out or back into a confrontation
the 69 yr old "threatened' him with a gun
both were jawing at each other
how and why and "if" the 69 yr old got punched came from a self serving statement

second degree murder too far off base?

 

[ants]

Too many of us are not paying attention to the legal facts.

The dog didn't pee. The dog didn't poop.

For clear understanding of the legal aspects, I hope it's permissible to quote this portion of text from this source here http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/...-neighbor-after-dog-urinated-on-his-lawn.html

It started as a quiet night. Clements told a jury he was watching a recording of the 1986 Bears Super Bowl game on May 9 when his wife, Mary, said she needed to run to the Crete post office to pay their credit card bill. As was his custom, Clements said, he escorted his wife -- who testified earlier that she was terrified by violent crime in the neighborhood -- to her car armed with a handgun.

He sat on the front porch watching -- a pair of work coveralls over his pajamas and a .45-caliber Essex Arms semi-automatic in his pocket -- as his wife drove away around 7:50 p.m. from their home in the 500 block of Landau Road.

Shortly after, Funches walked past with his fox terrier Gucci. Clements, who neighbors say obsesses over his lawn, testified Funches looked at him "with a smug and defiant look on his face and allowed the dog to wander on my property."

"I said, 'Please keep your dog on the sidewalk because that is a public thoroughfare,'" said Clements, who went on at length during cross-examination about animal-waste ordinances in the village where he has lived since 1987. "I knew about the ordinances. I pay attention to my village. I love my village."

He said he worried that if one dog defaced a patch of his grass, others would follow suit.

Clements, who wears hearing aids, said he couldn't hear Funches' shouted reply, which Clements described as "adversarial."

Neighbor Wesley Haslett testified he heard Funches yell at Clements and threaten to beat him.

As Funches walked away, Clements testified, "I said, 'Stop, wait a minute, talk to me.'"

"Old man -- I don't give an F about your property or your grass," Clements testified Funches replied.

Clements said he took out his handgun and showed it to Funches, who said if Clements took it out again, he'd better use it.

"If it'd been 20 years ago I'd have taken him on," Clements, who is three inches taller and 58 pounds heavier than Funches, said with a smile. "(I was thinking) I'm not going to take whatever you think you're going to do."

Funches, who was standing about three feet away, said something else. Clements said he leaned in to hear when Funches punched him once in the mouth, causing him to stagger back a couple of feet.

"The punch kind of rattled my brain," Clements said, adding that Funches didn't appear to be moving towards him. "Instantaneously, I pulled my weapon, racked a round, and fired."

Clements said he shot from the hip without aiming. He and neighbors saw Funches walk away, fall, get up and walk a bit farther before falling again. Clements said his gun jammed after firing and he was trying to clear the spent casing so he could fire again if needed. He went home, changed, put his gun away and called his stepson, Theo Brooks, a retired Country Club Hills police officer.

"It was in my mind that this young man intended to disarm me and hurt me with my own weapon," Clements said.

• Homeowner armed himself to escort wife as she left the house.
• Homeowner sits on porch, still carrying gun.
• Neighbor's dog walks on lawn, but doesn't urinate or defecate.
• Verbal warnings and physical threats between the two men.
• Neighbor walks away, but homeowner calls him back.
• Neighbor repeats verbal confrontation.
• Homeowner brandishes gun.
• Homeowner (hard of hearing) approaches within 3 feet of neighbor.
• Homeowner leans closer to hear neighbor speak.
• Neighbor punches homeowner, homeowner falls to ground.
• Homeowner fearful that neighbor will disarm him and kill him with his own gun.
• Homeowner (on ground) racks gun and makes ready to fire.
• Aims from hip and fires one round.
• Gun jambs.
• Wounded neighbor staggers away.
• Homeowner retreats to house and calls relative (retired LEO).
• Neighbor falls, bleeds to death.
• Relative arrives, speaks with homeowner.
• Police arrive to investigate, find no evidence that dog urinated or defecated.
• Homeowner charged with murder.

Illinois State law:
When defend yourself with deadly force because you think your life is in danger, but it really isn't, you may be guilty of Second Degree Murder.
Given the scenario described above, homeowner was found guilty of Second Degree Murder.
Extenuating circumstance is that victim physically provoked the shooter.
Homeowner receives probation in lieu of incarceration due to exentuating circumstance.

 

[ants]

This is the point I cannot forget...

At one point the victim tried to walk away from the verbal confrontation.
But the shooter called him back, and the confrontation escalated.
The armed man said to himself something like, "I'm not going to take your crap any more"
And he brandished the gun.
Which escalated the situation even further.



If you choose to carry, you CANNOT escalate the situation.


Legal point: I didn't know that "Defending yourself with deadly force because you think your life is in danger, but it really isn't" is considered 2nd Degree Murder in some states. I think we gun owners should research our own state laws and find out exactly how that affects us.

It is clear that extraordinary judgement is required when you carry a gun.

 

[Rumline]

After reading ants's last two posts, I'm reminded of the one time I served as a juror on a trial that actually involved a very serious set of charges. I was extremely impressed to find that everybody on the jury, from widely varying walks of life, really did their best to examine the evidence presented and the applicable laws and instructions from the judge to come up with the best possible (most accurate) verdicts. As a result, whenever I read of a controversial or non-straightforward case like this one, my initial reaction is always to trust the jury's judgment.

Illinois State law:
When defend yourself with deadly force because you think your life is in danger, but it really isn't, you may be guilty of Second Degree Murder.

Assuming that the above is true, I am further inclined to believe that the verdict is fitting.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Criminologist Marvin Wolfgang wrote a lot about what he called "victim precipitated homicide": a homicide brought about by the victim's own actions. This case appears to be a classic victim precipitated homicide aka "he brung it on himself".

o Clements was a 69 year old grandfather with no criminal record.

o Funches was a 23 year old man with a criminal record.

o Funches had a history of harassing, bullying and antagonizing Clements.

o Funches was walking his dog.

o Clements told Funches to stop letting his dog urinate on his lawn.

o Funches basicly told the old man to peeve off.

o The situation escalated in a mutual combat situation.

o The jury did not find first-degree murder, and convicted on the lesser second degree murder charge.

o The judge thought the situation merited probation and the county state's attorney respected the decision.

The firearms instructor in the class on SD law in the carry permit class I was given, would advise walking away from an argument of that type. An escalating mutual combat is not a proper situation to invoke justification of self-defense in a manslaughter. If you can walk away without a knife or bullet in the back, walk away.

If I spendt my spare time harassing an elderly man, walking my dog to urinate on his lawn because I knew it irked him, and he got angry at me and I told him to peeve off, cursed him and punched him, I would expect to be struck down by lightning. Maybe in the earthly manifestation of a .45.

You should show respect to other people, not show disrespect because you think the civilized restraint of others will let you get away with disrespect. Do unto others as you would have others do unto you should be the law.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Assuming an average age of 40, a jury of twelve
represents 480 years real life experience (I believe
that's according to noted attorney Gerry Spence).

They have been read the charges and the law by the
judge. They have seen and heard all the evidence and
observed the demeanor of the the witnesses to judge
their credibility.

There is a reason the trial by jury system has survived:
the jury box works better than the alternatives.

The worst alternative is trial by press in the court
of public opinion. Trial by anonymous bloggers in
cyberspace runs pretty close.

 

[NMGonzo]

Longtime provocation. Old man is proud of his house/lawn/garden/property. He works hard to maintain it at it's best. Young punk next door doesn't control his dog; lets it pee all over the neighborhood. Dogs continuously pees in old man's yard creating brown spots. Old man says to young man "hey, control your dog" "he's pissing on my lawn and uglifying it."

Young man says "**** you old geezer, my dawg can piss wherever he wants to."

This escalates into a shouting match, then probably a touching/shoving match.

Old man starts to pull out his .45, then changes his mind, thinking better of it.

Young man challanges "Old man, if you pull that thing out, you better damn well use it!" Young man then punches the old man in the head and beats the older man to the ground.

Old man then pulls his .45 and shoots the younger man in the chest. Young man dies right there on the pissed upon lawn.

Case closed ...

Old USMC vet goes back into his house and closes the door.

If I'm on the jury, the old guy goes free.

If that is the way it happened, I would let the guy walk, give his gun back, and a free sign reading "Last person to step on this lawn is now under a lawn"